6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

I just don't even know where to start with this!
OK, try this:
1) 'pure-bred' dogs are NOT 'natural' they were (and still are) created by humans through artificial selection.
2) The breeds are maintained because people called 'dog breeders' chose very carefully which dogs they allow to mate.
3) That's what 'breed' means you unbelievable dufus.
4) like all mammals the natural ancestors of modern dog breeds are relatively recent in evolutionary terms. The breeds themselves VERY VERY recent.
5) You should think a bit more about dog breeds, they are a nice example of how selective pressures (in this case artificial, but same works for natural) produce extremely different animals quite quickly.

Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
Way to contradict yourself there with "dogs naturally crossbreed". Then where the hell do the pure-breeds come from?

Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
Way to contradict yourself there with "dogs naturally crossbreed". Then where the hell do the pure-breeds come from?

Also, LC, yes, purebred dogs aren't natural as they've been selected for certain traits and only bred with dogs that their owners see fit.

EDIT: Damnit beaten to it several times over!

Also, purebred dogs, because of all the inbreeding, unlike mutts, have high chances of getting things like Collie Eye Syndrom or Degenerative Mylopathy(sp?) (which is basically MS for german shepards) and so forth.

6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs increases over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are only 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

"The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure."

Just visited the "article". I'm not a mathematician but can any one explain the "logic" behind this statement from the beginning of the piece.
"It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%."
How can these figures be derived from the mess that follows?

OK so what evidence do you have that at one point in history all dogs were purebred breeds, and at what point in time? How do you know that it didn't take dogs billions of years to crossbreed to the point where they're at today?

And of course this is assuming your argument has merit and doesn't take into consideration the fact that "purebred" dogs were bred by humans for their particular traits.

Okay, let's assume your argument is correct. Here are the problems with your argument even then:

1) You're assuming that dogs existed for the entire lifespan of the Earth.

2) You never demonstrated how many breeds of dog ever existed you just claim that there are only 100 so we have no frame of reference to gauge the implications of that number. For example, if I claimed that I had only 7 gallons of fuel left in my vehicle you can't tell whether that's good or bad unless you know what the frame of reference is; there's a huge difference between me talking about a Dodge Challenger having that much fuel left and a Boeing 747.

3) You never demonstrated that cross-breeding actually reduces the number of breeds that exist or the rate at which these breeds disappear.